Annual Report to the Faculty Senate
Promotion and Tenure Committees
2009-10
Discussion of General Issues
This is a summary of the discussion of general matters relating to Promotion and Tenure Review that occurred
during the Committee Meetings and subsequent emails. It is divided up as follows:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Matters Relating to Teaching
Matters Relating to Research
Matters Relating to Service
Matters of a General Nature
A. MATTERS RELATING TO TEACHING
Issue 1: Multiple modes of evaluation of teaching were not always included in the case books. Where multiple
modes of teaching evaluations were missing, a composite score from the student evaluations of teaching was the
only method of evaluation. Also in some cases the composite score from the student evaluations of teaching did not
include comparisons to other faculty in the department or if comparisons were included it was a generalized
statement (e.g. the faculty member ranks in the top half of the department). The Guidelines for Preparation and
Review of Applications for Promotion and/or Tenure, adopted by the Faculty Congress, June, 1999, accepted by
R.L. Simpson, Provost September 2, 1999, provides guidance on this issue. The relevant section from these
Guidelines provides:
The evaluation of teaching must utilize multiple modes of review. Where student evaluations are
used, the candidate's record should be presented by term and, when appropriate data are available,
they should be compared with comparable composite department data as reflected by ranges and
means. Quantitative data must be presented in a context which allows for meaningful
interpretation by promotion and tenure committees.
Based on the above guidelines multiple modes of evaluation of teaching are required to be presented. In addition,
comparison data also is required to be provided.
Issue 2: Some committee members felt that it was important to provide student comments as they relate to teaching
in order to provide a context for the composite teaching evaluation numbers. The Faculty Promotion Guidelines,
from the Office of the Provost, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, provide “Teaching evaluations should be
summarized in this section. Do not include individual student feedback, though we reserve the right to request
individual evaluations by students.” Based on this statement, Ann Arbor does not want student comments in the
casebooks unless the Provost office in Ann Arbor requests the comments. It is suggested that the Ad Hoc P&T
committee examine whether the Dearborn campus can deviate from this standard.
Issue 3: An issue was raised as to whether the questions that comprise the student evaluation composite score are
comparable across department and units. On April 9, 2007, the Faculty Senate approved the following common
questions to be included on all teaching evaluations:
1) The instructor was knowledgeable about the subject matter.
2) The instructor was effective in teaching the course material.
3) The instructor was effective in communicating course requirements
and expectations.
4) The instructor set high standards for student achievement.
Although the Faculty Senate adopted these questions, there was no requirement that these questions be used to
evaluate teaching for promotion and tenure purposes. As such, it is unclear whether the composite scores are
comparable.
Issue 4: An issue was raised as to whether high grades may be a reason why some candidates scored high on the
student evaluation composite score. Some committee members were uncomfortable questioning the candidates’
grading policies. A suggestion was made that there may be means other than grades to determine rigor of the class
including questions on the student evaluation that may be a surrogate for rigor such as “difficulty of the course” or
“instructor sets high standards.”
Issue 5: Some committee members noticed a pattern with regard to some candidates’ teaching evaluations (e.g. low
evaluations for large classes and high evaluations for small classes) and thought these patterns should be explained.
B. MATTERS RELATING TO RESEARCH
Issue 1: Most research issues revolve around the external research evaluation letters. Issues were raised as to
whether it is acceptable for all evaluators to be suggested by the candidate; whether it is acceptable for a reviewer to
publish with the candidate; what does it mean if the candidate and reviewer know each other; whether it is
acceptable to share the names of the reviewers with the candidates; and what exactly does “arm’s length” mean.
Two documents may provide guidance on the issues surround external research evaluation letters. The first
document Guidelines for Choosing Outside Evaluations of Faculty Research, from the Office of Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs, the University of Michigan-Dearborn (date unknown) provides in part:
The research materials of each candidate must be reviewed by at least five outside evaluators
(including at least two from among those recommended by the candidate) chosen by the
departmental promotional and tenure committee. The candidate will be notified of any evaluator
not selected from the candidate’s list and may comment on the choice but, of course, has no right
to veto the promotion and tenure committee’s decision. . . . Ordinarily, they should be scholars
whose work is not closely identified with that of the candidate, for example, as a dissertation
advisor or as a coauthor. It is the responsibility of the candidate to make known any special
association or relationship with the evaluator.
The Faculty Promotion Guidelines, from the Office of the Provost, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, provide in
part:
We urge you to stress with your department chairs, or the appropriate equivalent, that the external
letters must be evaluative and at “arm’s length.” We will allow letters from persons who have
been co-authors or major research collaborators with the candidate in excess of 10 years
prior to promotion. We consider letters from persons who have served as a candidate’s thesis
adviser or mentor to be "not arm's length." While these kinds of letters can be especially helpful
(because the letter writers can be presumed to have a good sense of both the person and the work),
it is also true that their own reputations are involved in the work being evaluated. If such letters
are included, they must be in addition to the minimum requirement of five "arm's length" letters.
Letters from persons who do not know the candidate, but who may have a clear sense of the
significance of the candidate’s qualifications, are of greater value.
These documents address whether it is acceptable for a reviewer to publish with a candidate (10 year rule). Neither
document addresses whether it is acceptable that the candidate knows a reviewer in a role other than co-author,
major research collaborator, or dissertation advisor. Neither document addresses whether it is acceptable that all
reviewers were suggested by the candidate. However, there are requirements in the units that names of reviewers
should come from both the candidate and the unit P&T Committee. Also, the standard outside review letter
provides that the names of the reviewers remain confidential. By releasing the names, the promise of confidentiality
is violated.
Issue 2: An issue was raised as to how accepted publications before the date of employment should be treated.
Issue 3: Some committee members thought it was important that candidates indicate as part of their research
portfolio, their contribution to the publications.
Issue 4: Some committee members thought it was important that in-press publications should be part of the external
review process and be part of the research portfolio.
Issue 5: The committee members thought it was important that research output that is evaluated as part of
promotion to associate should not be double counted for promotion to full. This would require some kind of
acknowledgement that in-press items at the time of promotion to associate are not included in research output for
promotion to full.
C. MATTERS RELATING TO SERVICE
Issue 1: An issue was raised as to whether an activity in which a candidate receives compensation should be
considered part of service.
Issue 2: Some committee members questioned the appropriateness of faculty advising candidates to avoid service.
D. MATTERS OF A GENERAL NATURE
Issue 1: Some committee members strongly suggested that abstention votes should be discouraged. Unlike other
meetings which include a variety of items some of which members present at the meeting may be unfamiliar, there
is only one purpose for a promotion and tenure committee meeting. As a consequence, people should be prepared to
vote “yes” or “no.” Also, it should be made clear that the meaning of an abstention vote is that it is a “no” vote?
Issue 2: Committee members suggested that the following additional information be included in the casebooks:
information relating to early tenure and votes from previous levels in the process.
Issue 3: An issue was raised as to the minimum number of people that need to vote at the departmental level.
Issue 4: Committee members suggested that for promotion from associate to full, the vita should just include
information from the previous promotion.
Issue 5: There is confusion around the role of the “advocate.” When the role of advocate was developed, the intent
was to create an advocate for the P&T Committee. The purpose of the advocate was to faithfully summarize the
range of discussions in the lower levels of the process and provide information relating to any “no votes.” It
appears that over the years, the role of the advocate has evolved into the advocate for the candidate.
Respectfully Submitted
Karen Strandholm
Campus P&T Committee Chair